The Politics of Father Rights Activists – Do persistent critics of the Family Court behave in a way
which stands up to scrutiny?
By M. C. Dunn
Presented to National Abuse Free Contact Campaign (NAFCC) 2004
In 1995 when the Australian family law was being amended, Family Court of Australia Chief Justice
Nicholson stated “some people and some politicians with limited knowledge of the issues involved,
tend to latch on to such dysfunctional persons for apparent political gain. This has the further
unfortunate effect of empowering such persons to feel that their behaviour is not only acceptable but is
the subject of sympathy and approval by politicians and government. It is all too often the experience
of this court that its most persistent critics have behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public
scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children”. Justice Nicholson
has consistently recognised that many of the Court’s harshest critics were “discontented litigants,
sometimes obviously dysfunctional”. Further, he recognised that these same people and the groups
to which they belong, were being granted access to corridors of powers that resulted in legislation and
policy reforms that did not arrest the violence against women and children (that was being heard in
some family court proceedings). Justice Nicholson continued “Such persons, who often espouse the
rights of fathers, do very little for their cause. There are legitimate matters that can be advanced on
their behalf and it is equally as important that the court and those within it do not adopt stereotyped
attitudes towards men as well as women.” (Nicholson 1995, p1)
In the context of Justice Nicholson’s comments above, this paper scrutinises the behaviour and
language of the two major father’s rights activists organisations, the Shared Parenting Council of
Australia (SPCA), and the Fatherhood Foundation (FF), particularly in relation to issues of violence
against women and children and how these intersect with the emergent contemporary discourse of
“fatherlessness” assertion and role models for children. Further this paper will provide evidence that
the internet based collectives affiliated to the two key fathers’ rights activists organisations incite
virulent hatred of, and harmful action towards targeted women and their perceived supporters. This
paper examines why these two key Fathers’ Rights Activist Organisations (FRAO) are gaining such
open access and encouragement to/from politicians when much of their agenda expresses high levels
of hate and vitriol against women and why this is seemingly ignored in public discourse to the
detriment of women’s and children’s safety.
1
This paper draws on primary materials including: submissions by FRAO and their membership to the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs 2003 “Inquiry into
Child Custody Arrangements” (from here on referred to as the Inquiry); self-generated literature;
father’s rights activists email lists and message board postings, and media searches of publishes
stories and broadcasts.
This paper focuses on the two major FRAO, the SPCA, and the FF because they have been identified
as the two key players in lobbying the Australian government for legislative change in the area of
family law.
Forming the Fathers’ Rights Agenda the two major Father’s Rights Activists Organisations
In 1998, after attending a prayer meeting in Canberra’s Federal Parliament, Warwick and Alison
Marsh founded the Fatherhood Foundation (FF). It was set up in response to address what they
perceived as an escalating social crisis caused by “fatherless families” and a high divorce rate (FF
2002). Contributing to their continued rise, the Fatherhood Foundation had been joined with and
influenced by some father’s rights groups like Fairness in Child Support/Non-Custodial Party, and the
Lone Fathers Association (LFA) (FF 2003, FF 2003i). Alliances within the men’s health network, rightwing conservative Christian prayer groups, and other men’s rights advocates resulted in the FF now
joining the discourse about the need for family law reform more strategically (FF 2003ii). Claiming
men’s rights to their children was the central platform, they agitated specifically for a rebuttable
presumption of shared care because “too many men were suiciding as a result of “femocentric family
law” system” (FF 2003iii).
A rebuttable presumption of shared care is a statutory provision that means that if parents separate,
there would be an immediate legal presumption that any children of the marriage would live 50 per
cent of the time with each parent. If that were not practical or desirable, then it would be up to one or
both of the parents in court to rebut or challenge that. In the words of SPCA’s Matilda Bawden,
"Parents (would) have the right to 50-50 contact and if a parent wants to contest that, they would have
to argue in the Family Court that it's not in the child's best interest to have that contact” (Wenhem
2003). The circumstances to rebut such a presumption were never made clear.
Shared care has different possible meanings in the context of the renewed family law debate. In 1996
The Family Law Act was amended to make clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent,
2
the responsibility for shared care of that child's well-being is ideally shared equally between both
parents. The Act clearly articulates the principles to which it aspires in Section 60B(2). Those
principles mean the Act provides a framework which is already 100 per cent flexible and can cater to
any permutation of residency arrangements ensuring the best interests of children and their safety. In
the context of the FRAO shared care means that children will divide their time between both parents’
residence equally (ie 50/50). A clear understanding of what is meant by ‘shared care’ is important, as
it differs from the term rebuttable presumption of shared care which has the underpinning emphasis on
preferencing parental rights by children spending equal amounts of time with each parent. Currently,
the amount of time a child spends in each parent’s residence is significant in the discourse of family
law reform, particularly as child support (cs) and welfare (Centrelink) disbursements are paid and now
linked to the time the children spend at each parent’s residence, measured in nights and/or the
primary residence.
In 2002, a number of the more vocal and active of the FRA groups from each state (other than
Tasmania) incorporated to form a national council with a specific father’s rights agenda, but using the
more ambiguous title of Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA) (SPCA 2002i). Partly this title
was developed in order to project a bipartisan approach to family law and to claim female support,
usually second wives/partners and paternal grandparents (West 2003).
Both the SPCA and FF have a strong cross-membership between both organisations (FF 2003iv,
SPCA 2003). While the FF has a distinctive right-wing fundamentalist Christian focus with an
emphasis to strengthen father’s roles within their families, the SPCA reflects the concerns of nonresident parents (mostly fathers). Both are concerned with family law reform. Many fathers’ rights
activists belong to multiple organisations to promote shared agendas for men’s control of property,
child support, mothers and children through marriage promotion and attacks on the social supports
available to single parent families.
Examples of joint affiliates, but with stronger right-wing fundamental Christian influence in both
organisations are the Festival of Light and Australian Families Associations. Both of these
organisations argue for preventative measures to stop marriage dissolution through the need to
control the capacity of women to leave, since women are more likely to take the children, and thereby
weakening fathers’ bonds with their child (Muehlenberg 2004). Another joint affiliate of both FRAO is
the secular Lone Fathers’ Association (LFA) which represents predominantly non-resident fathers.
3
Organisations which focus on family law reform for men have linked to the SPCA only. An example of
an affiliate of SPCA only is the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc. This organisation does not
construct itself as a FROA, rather it claims equality for both parents, but states that fathers are usually
the ones disadvantaged by the current family law system. Other affiliates are Dads Australia Inc,
Fathers After Divorce, Men’s Confraternity of WA Inc, Men’s Right Agency (national), the Fatherhood
Foundation, Ozydads and the Separated Fathers Network. With such a focus on fathers’/men’s rights
the name Shared Parenting Council of Australia is not congruent with their apparent inclusive title that
conceals a men’s rights agenda.
Access to political power
At least two of SPCA’s federal executive committee have political backgrounds, although in different
political camps. The SPCA Federal Director (2002-2003), Geoffrey Greene, is a former deputy
director of Liberal Party in South Australia who now works for the Liberal Party in Queensland whilst
and SPCA Federal Director (2002-2003), and SPCA’s founding President, Matilda Bawden, is a
former federal Democrat candidate. Both have had associations with the Richard Hillman Foundation
Inc (RHF), a South-Australian based FRAO which focuses on the interests of fathers who claim to
have been falsely accused of child sexual assault. Greene helped formulate the policy agenda for a
rebuttable share care policy through his connections with the RHF. By 2002 he had severed that
connection because the RHF had continued to pursue introducing a private member’s bill of a
presumption of rebuttable shared care through the far right-wing One Nation’s Senator Len Harris.
Greene saw greater opportunity to use his political connections within the Liberal Party, since they
were in power, to lobby key friendly politicians and senators active in forming a backbench committee
to influence the Prime Minister (Mottram 2003, Cassidy 2002, SPCA 2002ii). This strategy assisted
men’s rights advocates in gaining access to sympathetic politicians. As reported by SPCA, they
“established a clear pathway through the party room and Cabinet, to have our representations heard
and acted on” (SPCA 2002iii). Similarly, the FF had networked through the Parliamentary prayer
groups attended by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer, a number of Senators
finding support and an opportunity to reinforce the case for social reform through legislative change
(FF 2002).
Most of the SPCA federal executive committee and state and territory directors additionally have a
history of lobbying and activism. Co-founder of Men’s Rights Agency, Sue Price, and current Federal
director Michael Green facilitated a Parliamentary presentation that asserted the adversarial system of
the Family Law Court had failed (men) and that a mediation process should be the first option in cases
4
of family breakdown (SPCA 2002iii p2, Glancy 2002i, West 2003). (Green runs a mediation service in
Sydney for divorcing couples). This presentation won over many parliamentarians, staffers and some
media that were present.
Both the FF the SPCA most immediate agenda was to lobby government and representatives to
ensure that post separation fathers have equal time with their children, as opposed to the idea of
sharing responsibility (SPCA 2002 iv p3). The FF helped propel the SPCA’s lobbying by backing calls
for an inquiry with their claims about “the facts of fatherlessness”. This list of alarming statistics was
used to build the case for a rebuttable presumption of joint custody (Flood 2003). Aiding both FRAO
agendas is appeal to the many conservative Christian parliamentarians’ pro-marriage beliefs and a
few who support a masculinist discourse (Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Crabb 2003). Both
FRAO have succeeded in gaining sympathy for fathers, promoting their agenda using a rhetoric of
equal parenting while at the same time stigmatising “fatherless” families, and denigrating and branding
single mothers as insufficient care-givers whose families cause many social problems (Jones 2003,
The Age 2003, Albrechtsen 2003, Daily Telegraph 7/7/03, Arndt 2002, Arndt 2003).
The branding of single mothers resonated in the conservative Australian Prime Minister, John
Howard’s announcement of a major inquiry conducted by House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Family and Community Affairs into the arrangements of families post separation. The
announcement mooting the possibility of a “rebuttable presumption of shared care”, as well as
including inquiring into child support matters (Cordeaux 2003, Jones 2003i). The announcement
speech on June 24 2003 is the first recorded mention by an Australian Prime Minister of the concept
of a rebuttable presumption of shared care. Howard expressed his “worry” about growing
“fatherlessness” and “boys’ needing male role models” as one of the impetuses for calling the Inquiry.
This same promulgation of “fatherlessness” and boys’ needing male role models, specifically their
biological father was also the same theme that SPCA and FF used in their various presentations,
forums and lobbying to push changes in the area of family law.
When Howard called this Inquiry he reverted to using the outdated term of “custody” which was
replaced by residency in 1996 family law reforms to emphasise both parties have parental
responsibility post-divorce/separation ie: shared care (Parkinson 2003). This reform was to make
clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent, the responsibility or “custody” of that child's
well-being is ideally shared equally between both parents. The term custody is still used extensively by
FRAO.
5
Disinformation and stigmatisation
Since 1995 conservative politicians and men’s rights activists have advocated consistently for a need
for reassertion of Christian values, and promoted the traditional family as the basis for a stable society
(Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Millet 2002). The same covert language of mother-blaming,
specifically single mother families, and an increasing pressure to promote marriage was part of the
language and agenda by the FF on February 10, 2003 at their Fathering Forum held at Parliament
House (Muehlenberg 2002, FF 2003ii). This was done specifically in the context of pressing the need
for family law reform. The fatherlessness issue was further formalised on 26 June 2003, with the
launch of a policy document, “The 12 Point Plan”, at the National Strategic Conference on Fatherhood,
at Parliament House Canberra, well attended by politicians, their staffers, and media -just one month
prior to the announcement by Howard.
The significance of the National Fathering Forum was the disinformation about “fatherlessness”
disseminated as “fact” which was further repeated by those politicians who attended, and by media,
gaining a largely uncritical foothold. This political and media take-up strengthened political support for
fathers’ rights groups and in particular helped persuade Howard to hold the Inquiry into family law
(Albrechtsen 2003, Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003, Jones 2003, Arndt 2003i, Mottram 2003, Wroe
2003). These public statements and materials prepared by Muehlenberg and other FRAO are
characterised by the confusion of correlation and causation, the reduction of multiple social variables
to bivariate associations, the highly selective use of research evidence, neglect of contradictory or
competing evidence, and treatment of small differences as if they were gross and absolute (Coltrane
1997, p8 in Flood 2003). The fatherless claims are bogus statistics, with no factual basis yet became a
powerful weapon in asserting their fathers’ rights political agendas (Flood 2003).
To give one example, Michael Flood researched the claim that 'Boys from a fatherless home are 14
times more likely to commit rape' that was a widely reported part of the '12 Point Plan' released by the
National Fatherhood Forum in June 2003. Flood found it is one of the claims commonly made by
those who argue the destructive effects of father absence on families and society. Yet this statistic is
an invention. Although it has no basis in fact, it is regularly repeated even affecting social policy
formulation (Flood 2003, The Age 2003, Labi 2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard (Evans) 2003, Burke
2004).
6
Fatherlessness – a social crisis?
Some politicians were so convinced about a fatherless “social crisis” as to repeat the disinformation of
these FROA on their own websites, and in speeches in Parliament (Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003,
Senate Hansard 2003). This information was the stimulus for other politicians actively lobbying on the
need for family-friendly (father) policies, and other inquiries into the status of fatherhood (FF Issue No.
57- 29th September, 2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard Evan AL 23/9/03, Burke 2004). Accordingly,
some politicians continue to use the fatherless assertions as part of their wider conservative
reassertion of boys’ and men’s rights that covers such issues as boys’ under-achievement at schools,
boys (not children’s) role models, along with increased violence, men’s suicide and other arguments
that FRAO support, (Bouchard et al 2003, Nelson 2002, Oakes 2004, Stepfamily Zone 2003).
The political strategy of building an alarmist discourse about the problem “fatherlessness” aims to
stem the perceived permissiveness of marriage breakdown by stigmatising single mother families as
“fatherless” while at the same time promoting marriage by comparing social outcomes between the
traditional families and single mother families (Mead 1999). A key contributor to the FF’s The 12 Point
Plan, Meuhlenbeg claims that “85 per cent of sole parent families are fatherless families” (Fatherhood
Foundation 2003, Appendix), when in fact 83% of sole parent families in Australia are headed by a
woman (ABS 2003). Fatherless homes/families as defined by the National Library of Australia refers
to single mother families (NLA 2000). Muehlenberg’s insults discount single mother capabilities,
ignores fathers who have regular residency but not primary residency, ignores those fathers who have
no contact orders due to a past history of violence, and overlooks those fathers who abrogated contact
with their children, or those widowed. Consistent with the remainder of The 12 Point Plan,
Meuhlenberg argues in the context of the absent parent, that a “growing body of evidence... to ensure
the healthy development of children is the setting of the biological two-parent family. By a number of
indicators, children from intact, stable two-parent will do much better than children from broken homes
of single-parent families” (Muehlenberg 2002).
Blaming single mother families for poor social outcomes of children, in part based on data from other
countries is again simplistic and but avoids intersecting issues like poverty, violence, health, housing,
lower economic status of women, and resilience (Flood 2003). This political strategy of creating a
social panic about fatherlessness reinforced by similar statements of “worry” made by the Prime
Minister, which was echoed by politicians and media and that coalesce to undermine the image of
single mother family capabilities, negatively influencing the socially mediated attitudes that may be
personally internalised (Perry and Whiteside 2002).
7
In all this “fatherless assertion” there is little acknowledgment by FRAO or politicians that some ‘male
role models’ (or some female) may not be useful for boys and girls, particularly in those highly
dysfunctional families where entrenched conflict, domestic violence, serious mental illness or child
abuse occurs. In their pursuit of father-centric and pro-marriage agenda FRAO have ignored that it is
important for children to have effective, safe and healthy parenting, which most women are quite
capable of, particularly if they have adequate support and resourcing (Flood 2003). Where there are
negative outcomes among children who grow up without their biological fathers, these are explained in
part by selection effects – by systematic differences between the people who divorce or never marry
and those who marry once and stay married. Again these differences show up as high parental
conflict, substance abuse, violence, mental illness and other forms of anti-social behaviour which are
associated with divorce and with poor outcomes in children, not because the parent is a single mother
(Rodgers et al 2003 p6, Flood 2003).
The FF, the SPCA and many FRAO involved in lobbying for family law reform have consistently
sought to link suicide rates of separated men to blocked contact with their children and/or family
“disintergration” (FF2003vi). The charge that either it is the mother who blocks contact or moves too
far away or to the court who decide residency (and no-contact) arrangements (King 2003, Daily
Telegraph 2003, Rhoades 2002). Dads In Distress (DiD) claims ”up to 5 men suicide each week”,
while the SPCA claims up to “3 fathers suicide every day” as a result of family separation” (and being
unable to father daily) (SPCA 2003i p17, Miller 2003). Miller who convenes DiD arrives at his weekly
figure by assuming all 1817 male suicides in Australia in 2002 are due to separation distress, a totally
bogus invention. This casual link and statistical issue was investigated by the Inquiry, and the
Committee’s report stated “there are no reliable statistics on why men commit suicide. The committee
has made considerable effort to obtain this information but it is not available.” (HRSCFCS
Parliamentary Inquiry Report 2003). The FRAO suicide assertion puts the argument that these
children of separated parents grow up fatherless but if a rebuttable presumption of shared care is not
implemented there will be an epidemic of suicides (Miller 2004, SPCA 2003 submission p 17). This
suicide assertion seeks to make children a cure and hold women responsible for deeply depressed
mentally unstable men. Such an assertion does not advocate for better mental health accessibility
and affordability for men, some of whom do experience distress in the separation process (Robinson
and Rodgers 2004). Further, it presents an unacceptable risk of women and children’s safety as
evidenced by the distressing cases where fathers have murdered their children, occasionally the exwife (or other family members), and then suicided – most often in the context of their ex-wife
8
complying with contact arrangements. Post-fatality the connection is made that many of these men
had past histories of domestic violence (Passmore 2004, Jackman 2003, Flood 2003, Rathus, Rendell
and Lynch 2001, Astor 1994).
Therefore, the implications of fatherlessness claims and father suicide assertions in the context of
arguing for the rebuttable presumption of shared care has its largest impact on those most vulnerable
families, women and children who experience violence and abuse is at the hands of their
partner/father.
Spreading the word
Much of the propaganda of the SPCA’s and the FF and their supporters in the media and in parliament
is published and broadcast, often without a counterbalancing voices from women’s organisations or
groups, or even the views of those with family law or with social policy expertise (King 2003).
FRAO longed for an unfettered forum to air their views and sought a ways to gain greater public
support. This resulted in the development in 2001 of “Dads On the Air” (DOA), a weekly broadcast
community radio 2GL (outer Sydney, NSW,). Although, more significantly, for those outside the
broadcast area, DOA provides web-casts and internet-based message boards aimed specifically at
fathers who have separated, assuming that they are unhappy with how they, as men and fathers, are
treated by the courts, and/or child support agency and/or other family law infrastructure. The SPCA’s
website states that “the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is pleased to support the Dads on the
Air (DOA) program on 2GLF every Monday. To hear this program as an Audio Webcast click the link
below. Dads on the Air Webcast” (SPCA 2003ii). The reason behind such an endorsement of DOA is
that often SPCA leadership are regularly guests of the program. FF’s President Warwick Marsh has
also been a guest of DOA programs.
Additionally, since their formation both the FF and SPCA have sought to fund “an extensive publicity
and advertising campaign designed to inform and educate the Australian public” (SPCA 2002iv p3, FF
2002). Both these groups have media strategies aimed at gaining greater public support for their
respective and collective agendas (FF 2003i, SPCA 2002i). To this end, they are also aided by media
commentators like Bettina Arndt who have actively lobbied on behalf of, and aided FRAO by giving
them access to decision makers and giving them a forum to air their views and to influence public
opinion (FF 2003v FF 2003 vii). Ms Arndt’s influence extends beyond her media commentator role,
with her public speaking and her appointments to many consultative roles by the Coalition government
9
in advisory groups such as the Family Pathways Advisory Group, Ministers’ Advisory group on child
care and child development (Attorney-Generals Department 2000,The Age 2003).
With greater access to technology many individuals are able to link with each other, small vocal
groups, or with larger national organisations like the SPCA utilising the internet and airwaves. Also,
they are able to link nationally and internationally so there is an extensive internet-based network of elist discussion groups and websites on which to further strategise in response to their grievances
about family law issues and have an internet presence. Some members are on multiple lists, creating
repetition with cross-postings with information appearing on several sites and lists (some 28 identified
national lists associated with SPCA alone, many more international e-list affiliations). All FRAO sites
and e-lists are anti-feminist.
Webcasts and websites like Dads on the Air (DOAw), e-lists like Ozydads and the shared parenting
yahoo list that hosts message boards and forums plays a considerable role in supplying space and
information, sometimes launching vitriolic attacks that quickly escalate into hate speech and/or incite
hatred on/about individual and collective women, feminists, judiciary, government agencies and
organisations that intersect with family law and/or their political agenda. For example after a DOA
broadcasts, it is common to find anonymous individuals posting their grievances on message boards,
including some overseas FRA posts. Easy access to email facilitates a quick and effective way of
contacting opponents, fellow supporters, media and politicians and is part of an essential FRAO tool
kit.
Some public sites keep the language respectful, but closed lists, and/or anonymous boards display
language and rhetoric that are disturbing. Some posts involve the expression of hate, violence,
threats and/or unrestrained discourse against anyone who the FRAO feels opposes their views or
questions their rights. This phenomenon is not isolated to the Australian context as a Canadian study
by Bouchard, Boily and Proulz found. In the context of family law where domestic violence and child
abuse cases feature more prominently, particularly in the contested cases, the hate speech and the
incitement of more “militant” action is an extension of the familial intimidation and violence into the
public and political sectors.
As part of their hate rhetoric FRAO continue to incite one another to keep their ex-partner in litigation.
For example, after the initial report of the Inquiry, many postings on various FRAO-networks incited
one another to “drag their ex-partners back into the legal system to “clog it up” and “show the bitch
10
and the [politicians/judiciary] bastards we want their child for equal time” [Ozydads e-list, posted
29/12/03]. It is impossible to assess whether these men then carry through with their threats.
Further the vitriolic language of FRAO members single out representatives of specific organisations
who either represent family law system or who comment on issues associated with family law. For
example Chief Justice Nicholson, HREOC Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward, even
academics like men’s interest researcher Michael Flood are described as “the enemy”, “maggots”,
labelled misandrists and often slandered using derogatory terms, sometimes with homophobic labels.
Occasionally post describe inflicting murderous desires on these individuals, particularly the Chief
Justice and his colleagues (“If I could ask for my "Family Law Court Judge" (FLCJ) to be hanged”). An
example of the more extreme of emails was posted on a list moderated by a former State director of
the SPCA that stated:
Posted 19/03/2004 Ozydads network
“>What about Magistrates like Lawrence of Rockingham WA who not only
>accepted false DVO's but re-established them for THREE MORE YEARS!!1
>I want to kill that cunt and god help him if I find his address”
Sometimes the FRAO e-lists and sites accuse the Courts of being like feminists who they see as
dictators (“feminazis” or “feminazi puppeteers”) and who are accused of great crimes (“crimes against
humanity”, “legal child abductors”). Other hate rhetoric is aimed at professionals generally, especially
lawyers, social workers and even police (“Lawyer-solicitor-barrister-judge scum mafia are riding on
feminazi brainwashing ordinary taxpayers into believing they are neither well-paid thieves nor child
abusers”).
More hate speech and intimidation is reserved for single-mother and sole parents’ spokeswomen who
are vilified, slandered, defamed and hated with ferocity (“face of feminazi evil”, “fucking fat slag bloodsucking liar”). When the media allow these women to have a counter voice the hate-speech is
sometimes escalated into threats and/or outright intimidation as posts on DOA escalated until FRAO,
Fathers 4 Justice’s Australian Coordinator, Trevor Arthurson (who appeared in the same 60 Minutes
program) sought to incite harm against Sole Parents’ Union President, Kathleen Swinbourne with a
false allegation that stated “WE SHOULD REPORT HER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
SERVICES [CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY] FOR THE WAY SHE TREATED HER SON” (DOA
30/5/04).
11
FRAO even target hate mail towards politicians, some whom have worked hard to support and
understand their agenda. After the handing down of the report of the inquiry titled, “Every Picture Tells
a Story” politicians reported receiving “hate mail threats of violence and significant abuse” (Hull 2004).
Mrs Hull, as woman-chair of the Inquiry, was targeted and labelled “treacherous” and politicians
generally were described as “F****G politicians are LYING SCUM” for not recommending 50/50 care.
Fuelling such disgruntlement following the report’s release, DOA message boards had more than 460
posts (175 pages) of posts on one message board on DOA site alone, with some posts inciting a more
“militant” approach in lobbying and demonstrating their opposition to what they see as a “feminised
law system created by feminists”. Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) in Australia was started in April 2004 as
anger-fuelled men seeking to copy the more successful militant and intimidatory actions of their UK
brethren. Other FRAO messages boards contained similar postings. Since April F4J have attempted
to hold several intimidating demonstrations outside Family Courts where “decontamination suits” were
worn. The rationale behind F4J suits and super-hero costumes is “looks good in media and protesters
can remain anonymous” (Ozydads 2004).
Many of these men do not see their language and actions as intimidating and violent in nature in and
of itself. For example a women “Kym” challenged the fathers’ rights supporters about the hate speech
on DOA message board posted on 04/01/2004 and the replies attacked her personally and one
rejected her claims while suggesting such hate-speech was accurately targeted against “feminazi’s
are evil bitches”, that “poofter pollies..might be voted out”.
Besides targeting individuals, organisations, opponents and professions, FROA hate discourse is
almost exclusively focused on the same issues that the representative organisations push politically
and in the media, (ie: child support, being denied contact with children, false allegations of child abuse
and/or domestic violence, PAS, that women are equally violent, biased family court).
Some dedicated groups (for example: www.StopPAS.info www.MaleVictim.net , www.SelfRep.net ,
www.FamilyRules.net) have emerged on particular issues such as Parental Alienation Syndrome
(PAS), which has been rejected by reputable medical and legal experts an invented condition. Yet
postings quickly accuse the ex-partner of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) labelling them “PASchild alienators”. This dedicated internet-based group assists fathers and their children who other
FRA diagnose as being PAS victims, with peer-support and advice in how to incorporate such
“evidence” into their court proceedings. PAS is growing in popularity amongst members of the father's
rights movement. Initially, this syndrome was used by men who have allegations or have been
12
charged with child abuse and/or domestic violence but now it is used by men who resent what they
see as their ex-partner’s “gate-keeping” the child. Mostly it’s fathers and/or their second wife who
claim that the mother of their child is trying to alienate the father-child relationship as a means of
denying contact and/or getting an upper hand in court. In all their rhetoric there is no recognition in
any of the discussion of resolving entrenched conflict, or of the reality of incest and domestic violence.
Other vocal internet-based groups with issues are “Self-Represented Litigants”, “male victims of
domestic violence”,” child abduction”, “disenfranchised”, and “fathers against child support”. For
example FRAO combine their disgruntlement about child support and hatred rhetoric about the Child
Support Agency (CSA). They believe that this agency and its staff are directly responsible for their
misery claiming impoverishment resulting from a harsh formula (Stapleton 2000). FROA strategise
and lobby to make child support payments “fairer” for payers (mostly fathers), on how to achieve a
50/50 shared care partly to abolish any child support assessment (Flanagan 2003). The FRAO logic
is that if each parent shares the care including financial responsibility equally there will be no need for
a child support agency intervention. Sometimes posts contain accusations that the Child Support
Agency (CSA) is “hounding them to death”, or how to exploit loop-holes or win a change of
assessment to reduce child support obligations. Sometime though, FRA incite one another to email
the child support agency, or participate in campaigns design to show their contempt for this agency.
This ties in with their unsubstantiated opinion that all men are suffering in the family law system, and
that this is causing ‘an epidemic of male suicides, especially after the issuing of child support
obligation/debt notices’ (Stapleton, 2003, SPCA 2003).
At other times their misogynist views encourage disparaging posts of their ex-partner, sometimes
revealing highly sensitive identifying reference numbers and/or personal information about themselves
and their ex-partner on publicly accessible e-lists, clearly breaching privacy laws. For example a letter
to the Child Support Agency in Melbourne was posted to a DOA forum containing the case reference
number, and the full names of all parties and information about his case and obligations. The father
blames the mothers for his serial fatherhood and consequent child support obligations.
Commonly postings about the CSA are referring to it as the C$A or the “Collection and Suicide
Agency”. For example – this email is an excerpt of a campaign’s instructions to send old dirty shirts to
the Prime Minister, and failing acceptance of the shirts by the PM’s office to ensure the return address
is each father’s CSA case manager, posted to world lists on 13/1/04:
13
“ Put the name and address of your C$A case manager as the sender on the post pack (– THIS IS
IMPORTANT, IF THE PM REFUSES DELIVERY YOU DON'T WANT YOUR SHIRT RETURNED TO
YOU, THIS WILL GET YOUR SHIRT SENT TO YOUR CASE MANAGER) I am a non-custodial
parent. I know that the government and Child Support Agency won't be happy until they have the shirt
off my back. Well here it is! I hope you're satisfied!”
Further, fathers’ rights activists set up websites or post their stories about being “driven to welfare
dependency”, or “fleeing overseas” “in exile” because of child support obligations (Desbois 2004).
Conversely these same individuals while claiming to love and care about their child/ren do not appear
to be willing to concede that child support keep will their child out of poverty, and that their lack of
contact with their child/ren is self-imposed. This is one among many inconsistent opinions and beliefs
which characterises the FRA agenda. For example this posting to Ozydads network demonstrates:
“re: Phone calls, conferencing and pity
Mark wrote:
>"Its all bullshit.FUCK the legal system, go out and DO what you
must.....whatever the cost.enough is enough.The REAL men are in jail \snip\
..well, Mark, i am a 'real' man and i chose to be out of jail by hiding
overseas. to make a difference i joined F4J to fight. Lionel is a member of
f4j-international. please join him and others in WA to decontaminate your FCs.
Roger
http://www.pafe.human-rights.org/index.htm
In all the FRAO hate commentary that targets opponents, organisations, and issues most of their
propaganda affects women generally. The SPCA’s woman president, Matilda Bawden, expressed it
like this: “The Family Court is biased against men; self-serving feminists dominate the family law policy
agenda in Australia and the Family Court itself; women habitually “lie and cheat in court” (Wenham
2003). This again feeds into a collective ideology that mothers (women) lie and cheat and are likely to
make false allegations. This ideology is transparent in SPCA views and rhetoric on violence against
women and child abuse, almost exclusively framed in the context of false allegations.
Adding to the assertion that women lie and cheat the SPCA seeks to negate women’s experiences of
violence by arguing gender symmetry (ie: that men and women are equally aggressive towards each
other and therefore domestic violence is a gender-neutral issue) (SPCA, 2003, Men’s Rights Agency,
2003). In their submission to the Inquiry the SPCA offers no discussion on how to engage
perpetrators to end their violence, or how to protect victims other than through mandatory mediation
and counselling. Given that separation is a high risk period for women and their children’s safety,
enforced mediation has been shown to expose women to being re-abused (Astor 1994, Rathus et al
14
2000). Further FRAO have organised to attack campaigns that seek to end violence against women
including writing to politicians, and the Advertising Standards Board to complain about the “Australia
says No to violence” domestic violence campaign (Ozydads 15/6/04, 20/6/04).
Similarly FROA child protection discourse is generally in the context of biological fathers are the best
protectors of their children, that most allegations are false. Although the SPCA wrote in support for
speedy expedited investigations where child abuse is “established” allowing the Family Court to rule
on parenting plans [presumably no contact] (SPCA, 2003). Yet FRAO are so vehement in their
assertion that women and children falsely accuse child abuse that even child protection campaigners
come under attack. SPCA Director Edward Dabrowski, on 29/6/04 emailed Senate candidate and child
protection campaigner Hetty Johnson, “I have read you mission statement for an automatic
presumption of no contact for fathers who are victims of false abuse accusations and mother's shallow
objections. Even worse is that you would deny natural justice on the basis of unproven allegations. Do
you really think that people will vote for a despot to enter Parliament and remove their natural rights
and relationship with their children? You have been found out, uncovered, exposed”. Again the
assumption is that women lie and coach children to falsely accuse fathers, as Ms Johnson’s campaign
mirrors the New Zealand Bristol Inquiry recommendation of no contact while allegations are thoroughly
investigated. A small disruption that preferences child safety over parental rights.
Where FRAO do recognise child abuse they are more likely to selectively cite Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare (AIHW) child abuse data that records the family structure the child is living in, not
the relationship of the perpetrator to the child (ie the single mother family). This selectivity fits with
FROA misogyny that blames the mother to reinforce their opinion that biological fathers are the best
protectors and single mothers are bad for children, especially if they have re-partnered. Their rhetoric
discounts the urgent need for better child protection systems and safe parenting, instead seeking to
promote fathers over mothers.
FROA also try to promote fathers to the detriment and denigration of mothers by posting global news
items of child abuse perpetrated by mothers, or mother’s new partner to their e-lists or boards as a
way of validating this belief (Ozydads 2002-2004, Shared Parenting Forum 2003-2004). News-reports
are problematic as they approach complex social issues with simplistic conclusions, and often not all
the full facts are presented at the time the story goes to print/air. Additionally, news agencies are
selective in the reporting of news. So while FRAO are vocal about the need for biological father’s child
protection, they are not pushing for more child-friendly investigation processes and prosecutions. Nor
15
do their policies take account that some child abuse victims are pre-verbal, or lack language skills to
articulate the crime. Unless a forensic approach is taken to collecting evidence, and/or there is
greater cooperation between Federal and State agencies, substantiation of abuse enough for
conviction child protection in the family law system continues to be problematic (Brown et al 2001).
The FROA discourse on domestic violence and child abuse depends on denying and negating victims’
experiences. FRAO present flawed, ill-conceived and invalid rationalisation as social policy solutions
particularly when it comes to protecting victims of abuse and violence in familial circumstance. So
entrenched is FRAO assertion of false allegation combined with selectivity about data that many
FRAO ignore cases of child fatalities, and those women murdered by violent ex-partners even though
these mothers do comply with contact-orders even when their safety is at risk [(for example: Bartley
case 2002 (mother shot dead at handover), Kongon-Poulson case 2003 (2 infants and their
grandfather killed, Dalton case 2004 (2 infants smothered by suicide father prior to handover)].
Several studies and pilot programs like Magellan have shown FRAO assertions to have no substance
and that without proper Federal-State cooperative funding and investigations women and children’s
safety will continue to be at risk (Brown et al 1998, 2001).
Hate propaganda, bogus and statistical inventions overlooked.
Given there is much evidence of hate propaganda, bogus statistics and dodgy research underpinning
FROA policy, it is alarming that these groups are continuing to influence much of the debate and
public discourse about family law reforms and be so accepted by politicians.
The hate literature and extremism is generally being ignored on both sides of politics. Support for
FRAO has come from both houses of Parliament; Government Ministers and from a number of ALP,
Independent and minor parties members (FF 2003v). This can be explained in part by constituency
case load where fathers are more likely to complain. Further explanation may be found among the
substantial divorce rate of politicians (majority male) so father discontentment with the family law
system and on-going child support resonates with some of the personal life experiences of those
politicians who are non-resident payers, or second-wives.
Further explanation of FROA rhetoric may be found in the personal interpretation of the suicide of
Greg Wilton (Federal ALP member for Isaacs). There were many politicians on both sides of the
House who were affected deeply by the events and his death. Liberal South Australian Senator
Jeannie Ferris, who has helped SPCA along with NSW Backbencher Ken Ticehurst and Alan Cadman
16
who also assisted FF, have spoken of being deeply affected by Mr Wilton’s suicide, which came two
weeks after his attempted murder-suicide that was thwarted by police. Media reports simplistically
blamed his death on marriage dissolution, child support and/or lack of contact but neglected to
acknowledge his depression (mental illness) may have contributed to the separation/marriage
dissolution in the first place (Rodgers 2004). Many politicians also fail to recognise men’s lack of
access and poor funding of mental health support has meant that many men’s problems compounded
to breaking point and mental illness is highly featured in divorce cases. There is an urgent need to destigmatise mental illness, and encourage those suffering depression and other mental disorders to
seek out and access help. The safety needs of children are not best met by being cared for by a
suicidal parent.
In reviewing some hundred plus media stories, many media commentators were found to have acted
as customary spokespersons for the masculinist discourse (Bouchard et al 2003, Arndt 1999, Arndt
2002, Arndt 2003, Stapleton 2003, Jackman 2003, King 2003). While there are some attempts to
canvass alternative opinions, largely the debate of a rebuttable presumption of shared care was
reported from the “fathers losing out” perspective, often with an impassioned sense of grief (Overton
2004, Daly 2004, Horin 2003) and often sidelining domestic violence issues with incest/child abuse
taboo. In taking a sensationalist approach encouraging “gender wars” the media gains improved
ratings and sales but neglects social obligations. Further with the media reluctant to engage
constructively on social relationships, they influence and prejudice the socially mediated attitudes and
make invisible constructive discourse on building safe familial victims of violence.
It seems politicians and media have ignored men continue to be the dominant social group. The
FRAO portrayal of fathers as an underclass who suffers discrimination denies the gendered social
inequalities between men and women. It masks the gendered social, political and economic divisions
of power where women still run second to men (Bouchard et al 2003).
Of further concern that such the false claims, hate language and violence supportive behaviour by
FRAO is being overlooked by many politicians, bureaucrats and administrators in the context of the
family law, policy making and this is also resulting in judicial pressure. While inflammatory criticism
about alleged “collusion and corruption in the family law” continue unabated and while the leaders of
FRAO do not engage their members to desist from posting such hate mail Justice Nicholson’s words
caution all to scrutinise family law lobbying of FRAO. Such is the discourse of hatred and false claims
of gender symmetry when it comes to sexual abuse and violence against women by FRAO that
17
politicians have interfered in education campaigns that seek to lower or end violence in intimate
relationships (Wallace 16/12/03, Harvey 17/12/03). This political intervention, together with the denial
of hatred and threats against women generally, and FRAO opponents signals the presence of a
backlash. This backlash constitutes an impediment to engaging men to recognise and take
responsibility for their behaviour and language to ensure safety from violence for all.
So the question remains for politicians to answer why are FRAO gaining such influence and open
access, when there is clear evidence of hatred and targeting of women and those involved in family
law? There is a real need for politicians and media to assert women's rights to expression and
political power and to live without threats fear and hatred. The political acceptance and promotion of
the claims of fatherlessness insults those non-resident fathers who have positive influence and
positive relationship with their child/ren. Also it undermines adoptive, step and blended families and
continues to further stigmatise single mother households. None of this judgement and stigmatisation
of selected families is in children’s best interests.
Recommendations:
In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO to develop misogynist sites
inciting hatred, and the number of growing discussion groups used to promote anti-mother
propaganda, it is suggested that closer monitoring of these groups be undertaken by either a hate
watch organisation, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) or by HREOC to focus on gender
social relations (Bouchard et al 2003). Such monitoring should be used to provide warnings to
government agencies such as the Child Support Agency and the Family Court, also politicians, and
non government organisations which are the target of hate actions. Authors of hate mail and
incitements to violence should be investigated and prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent
offenders should be identified on a national security register.
The data from men’s hate speech could be collated and used to inform social policy development and
women’s status. Further that a family law media awareness network should be established for those
who intercept with the family law system to provide accurate information and to counter misinformation
and provided informed information about family law and gender social relations. For example FRAO
claims that fathers are subject to bias in family law is a provably false claim that is wrongly used to
recruit men to the FRAO agenda and to discourage them from reaching positive workable postseparation parenting arrangements solely in order to support the FRAO case. Users of the family law
18
system should not have to interpret it from a fathers’ rights framework but one from the perspective of
child safety and best interests.
Also it is proposed that the “Window on Women” site be the central information, reference and
factual data site for journalists and academics and others to access on the status of women in
various areas such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must always be
supported by analyses that provided the context, since without it the data only fuels the masculinist
discourses. This site and social responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of
a strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women’s groups of positive egalitarian
messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA propaganda.
19
References
Nicholson A. Chief Justice, 1995 Enhancing Access to Justice, Family Court of Australia Second
National Conference Papers, 2-23 September, Family Court of Australia. P1.
Fatherhood Foundation 2002 About Us -History, http://www.fathersonline.org/about/index.html
Fatherhood Foundation 2002i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue No.9-28 October, 2002.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003, The 12 Point Plan
Fatherhood Foundation 2003i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue No. 44-30th June, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003ii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 24-10th February, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003iii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No 43-23 June, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003iv National Fathering Forum Delegates List August 15, 2003.
Fatherhood Foundation 2003v Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 50-11 August, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003vi Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 36-5th May, 2003
Fatherhood Foundation 2003vii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 57- 29th September,
2003
Wenham Margaret 2003i 50-50 Vision 11/07/03 Courier Mail, Brisbane 2003.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002i SPCA Media Release 22 October 2002
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002ii SPCA Media Release November 18, 2002.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iii SPCA News Update Vol 1 Issue 2, 30 November 2002
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iv SPCA News Update Vol 1 Issue 1, 2002. 28 October
2002 p3.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003 Affiliate Organisations http://www.spca.org.au/
accessed 1/6/04
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003i Submission to the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Family and Community Affairs Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the event of
Family Separation p17
Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003ii www.spca.org.au home page accessed 1/6/04
West William, 2003, New moves to reduce divorce rate. Kairos Catholic Journal Vol 14 No 10 15 June
2003. Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.
Muehlenberg Bill, 2004 Why Families Are In Strife. Family World News June 2004. article 1, Australian
Christian Network. http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/2004/jun/art11.html
Mottram Murray, 2003, Why Howard suddenly started to talk about custody battles 21 June 2003 The
Age.
Cassidy Frank 2002, Back-Bench Committee To Press For Family Law Changes 17/11/02 Canberra
Times
Glancy Kevin, 2002i Spoils of Post Marriage Warfare, 14 November 2002 Men’s Rights Agency
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page21h.htm (accessed 1/6/04),
Glancy Kevin, 2002ii, in Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No. 11-11th Nov, 2002
Flood Michael 2003 Fatherhood and Fatherlessness. The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59,
November, pp. 21-23.
The Lyons Forum, 1995. Empowering Australian Families, Parliament House Canberra.
20
Andrews Kevin 1999, Developing a National Family Policy, Family Matters No 54 Spring 1999,
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Crabb Annabel 2003, Right Forms Lobby Group. 22/9/03 The Age Melbourne. Fairfax Press.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082866149.html
Jones Alan 2003. Fatherlessness, 11 December 2003. Today Show Editorial Channel 9 Network and
2GB.
The Age (AAP-unattributed) 2003 'Boys with absent fathers 'more likely to rape',' The Age, 26 June
2003
The Daily Telegraph 2003, Father's Torment The Daily Telegraph 7th July 2003.
Albrechtsen Janet 2003, Fathers Are Not Optional 7th May 2003, The Australian.
Arndt Bettina 2002 The US recognises the peril of absent fathers. Why can't we? December 9, 2002
The Age.
Cordeaux Alex 2003, Interview with the Prime Minister. 5DN 19/6/03
Jones Alan 2003i, Interview with the Prime Minister 2GB 20/6/03
Parkinson Patrick, 2003, Custody Battle About the House September – October 2003 p 16-19
Parliament House Canberra.
Millet Michael, 2002, Howard Has Faith in God Squad: Religion is playing a stronger role in politics as
family values push economic issues to the edge. 16/8/02 Sydney Morning Herald.
Cadman Alan 2003, Fathering for the Future accessed on 5/12/03
http://www.alancadman.com.au/viewarticle.asp?intarticleid=892
Barnett Guy 2003, http://guybarnett.com/article.asp?artid=179 accessed on 5/12/03
Labi Sharon 2003, Fatherless boys 'more likely' to rape 26/06/03 p Adelaide Advertiser, also found
News.com.au
Arndt Bettina 2003i To care for the kids, keep dad in the picture 20 June 2003 Sydney Morning
Herald (also published as -Fathers may get justice at last 20 June 2003, The Age)
Wroe David, 2003, Male politicians further fathers' cause June 27 2003 The Age Canberra
South Australian Hansard 2003, speech by Hon A L Evans, September 24 2003.
Burke Jacqui, 2004, Weekly Hansard 12 February 2004 Debates of the Legislative Assembly for the
Australian Capital Territory Fifth Assembly p267
Bouchard P, Boily I and Proulx M-C 2003, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist
Discourse 2003. http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_2_e.html
Nelson Brendon 2002, www.brendannelson.com.au/speakfrank/article.asp?ID=10
21
Oakes Laurie 2004, Interview Larry Anthony May 23, 2004. Sunday, Nine Network.
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1561.asp?MSID=58fe26c590f34689
bd5dda0026a2214f accessed 1/6/04
Stepfamily Zone 2003 accessed 1/6/04
www.stepfamily.asn.au/cgi-bin/ index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=704
http://www.stepfamily.asn.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=589
Mead Lawrence 1999 Welfare reform and the Family, Family Matters No.54 Spring/Summer Page 1
Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2003), ‘Family and Community Living Arrangements: Changing
families’, Australia Social Trends, Australian Bureau of Statistics downloaded www.abs.gov.au 1/06/04
National Library of Australia 2000, s
Muelenberg Bill 2002, The case for the two-parent family: part 1 NATIONAL OBSERVER:
AUSTRALIA AND WORLD AFFAIRS Cover date Autumn 2002 Vol.52 Pages 44-49
Perry Della and Whitemore Ruth, 2002 Recontextualising Violence: Children, 'Disability' and Gender,
People 1st Program WA.
Rodgers Bryan, Blewitt Kelly, Jacomb Patricia, Rosenman Stephen 2003 Childhood Adversity and
Abuse and Mental Health in Adult Life. Paper presented at 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies
Conference, Feb 2003.
King Madonna 2003, Dad's the other word, Tuesday View with Madonna King, 24jun 2003 Courier
Mail, Queensland.
The Daily Telegraph (unattributed) Father's Torment - Monday, 7th July 2003 Daily Telegraph,
Sydney.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs Parliamentary
Inquiry Report 2003 Every Picture Tells a Story, House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Family and Community Affairs Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family
separation. See Chapter 3, page 56, paragraph 3.48, Parliament House, Canberra.
Rhoades, Helen (2002) ‘The “No Contact Mother”: Reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the
“new father”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16: 71-94.
Miller Tony 2003, Dads In Distress Bare Facts accessed 1/12/03
http://www.dadsindistress.asn.au/information.html
Miller Tony 2004 Dads In Distress Fundraising Night Dural NSW email-18 April 2004 Ozydads
Network
Robinson Elly and Rodgers Bryan 2004, Mental Health & Changing Families
http://www.anu.edu.au/cmhr/changingfamilies.php
Passmore Daryl, 2004 The Ultimate Revenge, The Sunday Mail, 13 Jun04 p1 Queensland.
22
Jackman Christine 2003, When Dads get Deadly 17 September 2003 The Australian.
Rathus Zoe, Rendell Kathryn and Lynch A 2000 An unacceptable risk: A Report on child contact
arrangements where there is violence in the family, Brisbane, Women’s Legal Service.
Astor, H. 1994 ‘Swimming Against the Tide: Keeping Violent Men out of Mediation’, in J. Stubbs,
(ed.) Women, Male Violence and the Law, Sydney, Federation Press.
Attorney-Generals’ Department 2000, Members of Family Pathways Advisory Group Family Law and
Legal Assistance Division 2003.
http://www.law.gov.au/www/familylawHome.nsf/Web+Pages/B18ABBD3FEDA9EF6CA256C210019B
A5D?OpenDocument
The Age (declaration of interest underneath article) by Arndt, Bettina, 2003. A Chilling truth about child
care 5/2/03 The Age Melbourne Fairfax Press
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044318606737.html
Stapleton John Problem ' Parents ' Doin’ Time The Australian - Focus Section - Saturday, 8th April
2000
Flanagan John, 2003 Fatherlessness in single parent families and the solutions Australian Social
Policy Conference 2003.Fairness in Child Support
Men’s Rights Agency, 1999, quoting Look Who Doesn't Want A Divorce (Mclean Candis 1999,
ALBERTA REPORT January 11, 1999.
Desbois Roger 2004 accessed http://www.pafe.human-rights.org/index.htm (1/6/04) (Ozydads
Network)
Brown, Thea, Frederico M, Hewitt L, Sheehan R. 1998. Violence in Families: Report Number One,
The Management of Child Abuse Allegations in Custody and Access Disputes in the Family Court of
Australia, Family Violence and Family Court research Program, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. pp.
112.
Brown Thea, with Sheehan R, Frederico M, Hewitt L 2001. Violence in Families: Report Number Four,
Resolving Violence to Children, an Evaluation of Project Magellan, Family Violence and Family Court
Research Program, Monash University, Clayton Vic., pp.180.
Rodgers Bryan 2004, Mental Health and the Family Law System, Seminar Social Policy in the City 18
March 2004, Mission Australia Smith Family & SPRC UNSW
Overton Peter 2004, What Men Want –60 Minutes, May 23, 2004 Nine Network.
Dally Helen 2004, Caught in the Middle –Sunday March 7, 2004 Nine Network.
Horin Adele 2004, First, offer women some safety September 20, 2003 Sydney Morning Herald.
Wallace Christine 2003, 'Key Libs can anti-domestic violence ad campaign', The Australian Dec 16, 03
Harvey Michael 2003, ‘$15 M ad blitz is dropped' Herald Sun Dec 17, 03.
23